Demographic Profile of
Respondents
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
|
Characteristic
|
Category
|
Count
|
Percentage
|
|
Gender
|
|
Gender
|
Female
|
51
|
40.8%
|
|
Gender
|
Male
|
74
|
59.2%
|
|
Academic Level
|
|
Academic Level
|
Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate
|
14
|
11.2%
|
|
Academic Level
|
Masters
|
89
|
71.2%
|
|
Academic Level
|
PhD
|
22
|
17.6%
|
|
Time Lived in Kitchener/Waterloo
|
|
Time Lived in KW
|
Less than 6 months
|
9
|
7.2%
|
|
Time Lived in KW
|
6–12 months
|
49
|
39.2%
|
|
Time Lived in KW
|
1–2 years
|
49
|
39.2%
|
|
Time Lived in KW
|
Over 2 years
|
18
|
14.4%
|
|
Age Range
|
|
Age Range
|
18–21
|
11
|
8.8%
|
|
Age Range
|
22–25
|
64
|
51.2%
|
|
Age Range
|
26–30
|
34
|
27.2%
|
|
Age Range
|
Over 31
|
16
|
12.8%
|
Table 2. Regional Distribution of Respondents
|
Region
|
Count
|
Percentage
|
|
Africa
|
57
|
45.6%
|
|
Asia
|
42
|
33.6%
|
|
Europe
|
19
|
15.2%
|
|
North America
|
5
|
4.0%
|
|
Oceania
|
2
|
1.6%
|





Gender: 59.2% male (74 respondents), 40.8% female (51
respondents).
Academic Level: 71.2% pursuing a Master’s degree (89 respondents),
17.6% PhD (22 respondents), and 11.2% Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate
(14 respondents).
Time Lived in Kitchener/Waterloo: 39.2% have lived there for 6–12
months (49 respondents) or 1–2 years (49 respondents), 14.4% over 2
years (18 respondents), and 7.2% less than 6 months (9 respondents).
Age Range: 51.2% aged 22–25 (64 respondents), 27.2% aged 26–30 (34
respondents), 12.8% over 31 (16 respondents), and 8.8% aged 18–21 (11
respondents).
Regional Distribution: 45.6% from Africa (57 respondents), 33.6% from
Asia (42 respondents), 15.2% from Europe (19 respondents), 4.0% from
North America (5 respondents), and 1.6% from Oceania (2
respondents).
Objective 1:
Financial Strategies & RQ1: Housing Experiences
Identify various means of securing and maintaining affordable housing
units in Waterloo/Kitchener by international graduate students,
including the financial mechanisms they use to navigate housing
challenges.
- RQ1. What are the housing experiences of international graduate
students in Kitchener/Waterloo?
Housing Experiences
(RQ1)
Housing Stability
and Mobility Patterns
Table 1: Housing Stability and Mobility Overview (N = 125)
|
Category
|
Status
|
Count
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Housing Stability
|
|
Housing Stability
|
Stable Housing
|
74
|
59.2
|
|
Housing Stability
|
Unstable Housing
|
48
|
38.4
|
|
Housing Stability
|
Moderate Stability
|
2
|
1.6
|
|
Mobility Patterns
|
|
Housing Stability
|
Other
|
1
|
0.8
|
|
Mobility Pattern
|
No Moves
|
52
|
41.6
|
|
Mobility Pattern
|
Low Mobility
|
40
|
32.0
|
|
Mobility Pattern
|
High Mobility
|
33
|
26.4
|
- Housing Stability and Mobility
Quantitative Findings (Table 1)
Stability: 59.2% (74/125) of students lived in stable housing
(permanent or relatively permanent), while 38.4% (48/125) experienced
unstable housing (temporary/uncertain or informal). Only 1.6% (2/125)
had moderate stability, and 0.8% (1/125) were categorized as
“Other.”
Mobility: 41.6% (52/125) reported no moves, 32.0% (40/125) had low
mobility (1 move), and 26.4% (33/125) had high mobility (2+ moves),
indicating frequent relocations for some students.
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25)
Stability Variability: Students in stable housing valued
predictability, as a Chinese student noted, “I’m happy staying close to
the college—it’s comfortable.” However, unstable housing led to stress,
with a Vietnamese student stating, “My first place had no heating in
winter—it was unbearable.”
Mobility Driven by Cost: High mobility was often linked to financial
pressures, as a Pakistani student explained, “I moved three times in a
year to find something cheaper.” Qualitative data confirmed that 36%
(9/25) moved multiple times to secure affordable housing.
Stable housing (59.2%) reflects successful financial strategies for
some, but the high proportion of unstable housing (38.4%) underscores
affordability challenges, aligning with Objective 1. High mobility
(26.4%) indicates a reactive financial strategy to rising rents or poor
conditions, as seen in qualitative reports of frequent moves. These
findings highlight the precarious housing experiences (RQ1) driven by
financial constraints.
Housing Challenges
and Discrimination
Table 2: Housing Challenges Faced by International Students
|
Challenge Type
|
Count
|
Percentage (%)
|
Severity
|
|
High Housing Difficulty
|
59
|
47.2
|
Significant
|
|
Excluded as International Student
|
45
|
36.0
|
Significant
|
|
Used Unofficial Housing
|
30
|
24.0
|
Moderate
|
|
Negative Housing Impact
|
30
|
24.0
|
Moderate
|
|
Experienced Discrimination
|
23
|
18.4
|
Moderate
|
- Housing Challenges
Quantitative Findings (Table 2):
High Housing Difficulty: 47.2% (59/125) found their initial housing
search “Difficult” or “Very difficult,” classified as a significant
challenge. Exclusion as International Students: 36.0% (45/125) reported
exclusion due to their international student status, a significant
barrier.
Discrimination: 18.4% (23/125) experienced discrimination, with
specific reasons including financial capability (“ability to pay,”
34.8%), student status (43.5%), and racial/cultural factors (26.1%
racial, 17.4% cultural/religious) (Table 4 from prior analysis).
Negative Housing Impact: 24.0% (30/125) reported negative impacts on
well-being (e.g., stress, anxiety), and 24.0% (30/125) used unofficial
housing, both classified as moderate challenges.
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Affordability Barriers: High costs were a dominant challenge, with an
Indian student stating, “The rent here is so high, I was shocked—$800
for a shared room is more than my scholarship.” Eighty percent (20/25)
highlighted affordability issues.
Discrimination Experiences: Discrimination was prevalent, with a
Nigerian student noting, “I was told the apartment was taken after they
heard my accent,” and a Kenyan student adding, “One landlord asked if I
eat ‘weird foods’—it felt like they didn’t want an African tenant.”
Forty-eight percent (12/25) reported discrimination.
Navigation Difficulties: Fifty-two percent (13/25) found the housing
market “confusing” or “overwhelming,” as a Pakistani student explained,
“I didn’t know about leases or tenant rights.”
The significant prevalence of high housing difficulty (47.2%) and
exclusion (36.0%) aligns with qualitative reports of “overwhelming”
searches and landlord biases, fulfilling RQ1’s focus on housing
experiences. Discrimination (18.4%) and negative impacts (24.0%) reflect
financial and systemic barriers, with unofficial housing (24.0%)
indicating a risky financial strategy to bypass credit checks or
deposits (Objective 1). These challenges highlight the complex housing
experiences faced by students.
Financial Strategies
(Objective 1)
Primary Financial
Coping Mechanisms
Table 3: Financial Coping Strategies by Category (N = 125)
|
Strategy Type
|
Specific Strategy
|
Count
|
Adoption Rate (%)
|
|
Cost Reduction Strategies
|
|
Cost Reduction
|
Shared Housing
|
58
|
46.4
|
|
Cost Reduction
|
University Housing
|
34
|
27.2
|
|
Cost Reduction
|
Stay with Connections
|
15
|
12.0
|
|
High-Risk Strategies
|
|
High Risk
|
Unofficial Housing
|
30
|
24.0
|
|
High Risk
|
No Initial Contract
|
22
|
17.6
|
|
Support-Seeking Strategies
|
|
Search Methods
|
Free Search Platforms
|
90
|
72.0
|
|
Search Methods
|
Paid Search Services
|
24
|
19.2
|
|
Search Method Strategies
|
|
Support Seeking
|
Social Support Networks
|
82
|
65.6
|
|
Support Seeking
|
University Support
|
78
|
62.4
|
- Financial Coping Strategies
Quantitative Findings (Table 3, Table 5, Table 5a):
Cost Reduction Strategies:Shared Housing: 46.4% (58/125) used shared
housing (e.g., private shared flats, hostels), achieving 72.4% stable
housing, 43.1% improved housing, and 31.0% satisfaction.
University Housing: 27.2% (34/125) used university-arranged housing,
with 60.3% stable housing but lower improvement (29.5%) and satisfaction
(41.0%).
Stay with Connections: 12.0% (15/125) stayed with friends/family, a
less common but cost-effective strategy.
High-Risk Strategies:Unofficial Housing: 24.0% (30/125) used
unofficial housing, with 66.7% stable housing, 53.3% improvement, and
46.7% satisfaction, but only 73.3% avoided discrimination.
No Initial Contract: 17.6% (22/125) lacked a formal contract,
increasing vulnerability.
Support-Seeking Strategies:Social Support Networks: 65.6% (82/125)
relied on social support, with 64.6% stable housing, 39.0% improvement,
and 32.9% satisfaction. University Support: 62.4% (78/125) used
university support (Yes/Somewhat), with 60.3% stable housing but only
29.5% improvement.
Search Methods:Free Search Platforms: 72.0% (90/125) used platforms
like Facebook Marketplace or Kijiji, with high adoption but variable
outcomes. Paid Search Services: 19.2% (24/125) used real estate
agencies, less common due to cost.
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Shared Housing: Sixty-four percent (16/25) used shared housing to
reduce costs, as a Chinese student noted, “I live with three others to
split the rent—it’s the only way to afford living here.” However,
privacy issues were common: “It’s hard to study with so many people
around” (Nigerian student).
Unofficial Housing: Twenty-eight percent (7/25) used unofficial
arrangements, with an Indian student stating, “I stayed in a basement
with no lease because the landlord didn’t ask for a credit score,” but
risks were evident: “No heat, and I couldn’t complain” (Kenyan
student).
Social Networks: Seventy-two percent (18/25) relied on networks, with
a Ghanaian student explaining, “My Ghanaian friends connected me with a
trusted landlord.” Chinese students used Xiaohongshu, as one noted, “It
had listings from other Chinese students.”
Mobility as a Strategy: Thirty-six percent (9/25) moved multiple
times, as a Cameroonian student said, “Every time rent went up, I had to
find a new place.”
Shared housing (46.4%) and social support (65.6%) were the most
common financial strategies (Objective 1), aligning with qualitative
findings of cost-splitting and community reliance. Unofficial housing
(24.0%) and no contracts (17.6%) reflect high-risk financial mechanisms
to bypass barriers like credit checks, but lower discrimination
avoidance (73.3%) suggests vulnerability. University housing (27.2%) and
support (62.4%) were moderately effective but limited in improving
housing (29.5%), consistent with qualitative reports of outdated
university resources. These strategies shape the housing experience
(RQ1) by mitigating but not eliminating financial stress.
Housing Decision
Priorities
Table 4: Housing Decision Factors by Priority
|
Decision Factor
|
Frequency
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Location
|
97
|
77.6
|
|
Price
|
94
|
75.2
|
|
Safety
|
76
|
60.8
|
|
Amenities
|
57
|
45.6
|
|
Pet-Friendly
|
3
|
2.4
|
|
Religious
|
2
|
1.6
|

- Decision Factors and Support Systems
Quantitative Findings (Table 4, Table 6):
Housing Decision Factors (Table 4):
Price: 75.2% (94/125) prioritized price, reflecting financial
constraints.
Location: 77.6% (97/125) valued proximity to campus or amenities.
Safety: 60.8% (76/125) prioritized safety, particularly females
(prior analysis: 35.3% vs. 24.3% males).
Amenities: 45.6% (57/125) considered amenities, with niche factors
like pet-friendliness (2.4%) and religious proximity (1.6%) less
common.
University Support Impact (Table 6):High University Support: 34.4%
(43/125) reported high support, with 62.8% social support, 41.9% high
difficulty, 18.6% discrimination, and 16.3% negative impact.
Moderate University Support: 28.0% (35/125) reported moderate
support, with higher difficulty (57.1%) and negative impact (25.7%).
No University Support: 28.0% (35/125) reported no support, with 65.7%
social support but 34.3% negative impact.
Did Not Seek Support: 9.6% (12/125) did not seek support, yet faced
high difficulty (66.7%) and discrimination (33.3%).
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Decision Priorities: Affordability was critical, with an Indian
student noting, “Landlords ask for first and last month’s rent, plus a
deposit—it’s impossible without savings.” Safety and location were also
key, as a Malaysian student said, “I chose a place near campus for
safety, even if it cost more.”
Limited University Support: Only 40% (10/25) found university support
helpful, with a Malaysian student stating, “The university gave me a
housing list, but most places were already taken or too expensive.”
Students often turned to social networks instead, as a Ghanaian student
noted, “My friend from church helped me find a place.”
Price (75.2%) and location (77.6%) were dominant decision factors,
aligning with Objective 1’s focus on financial strategies and RQ1’s
exploration of housing experiences. High reliance on social support
(65.6%) compensates for limited university support effectiveness (e.g.,
57.1% high difficulty with moderate support), consistent with
qualitative findings of outdated resources. The high difficulty (66.7%)
and discrimination (33.3%) among those not seeking support suggest that
lack of institutional guidance worsen financial and systemic
challenges.
Financial Strategy
Effectiveness
Table 5a: Strategy Effectiveness – Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
|
|
Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
|
|
strategy_clean
|
Stable Housing
|
Housing Improved
|
Satisfied
|
|
Shared Housing
|
72.4
|
43.1
|
31.0
|
|
Social Support
|
64.6
|
39.0
|
32.9
|
|
University Support
|
60.3
|
29.5
|
41.0
|
|
Unofficial Housing
|
66.7
|
53.3
|
46.7
|
Table 5: Strategy Effectiveness Matrix – Success Rates (%)
|
|
Positive Housing Outcomes (%)
|
|
strategy_clean
|
Stable Housing
|
diff
|
discrim
|
Housing Improved
|
Satisfied
|
|
Shared Housing
|
72.4
|
NA
|
NA
|
43.1
|
31.0
|
|
uses_shared_housing_low
|
NA
|
46.6
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
uses_shared_housing_no
|
NA
|
NA
|
86.2
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Social Support
|
64.6
|
NA
|
NA
|
39.0
|
32.9
|
|
uses_social_support_low
|
NA
|
46.3
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
uses_social_support_no
|
NA
|
NA
|
81.7
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
University Support
|
60.3
|
NA
|
NA
|
29.5
|
41.0
|
|
uses_university_support_low
|
NA
|
51.3
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
uses_university_support_no
|
NA
|
NA
|
80.8
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Unofficial Housing
|
66.7
|
NA
|
NA
|
53.3
|
46.7
|
|
uses_unofficial_low
|
NA
|
40.0
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
uses_unofficial_no
|
NA
|
NA
|
73.3
|
NA
|
NA
|
Support System
Analysis
University
vs. Social Support Impact
Table 6: University Support Levels and Housing Outcomes
|
|
Associated Outcomes (%)
|
|
University Support Level
|
Count
|
Percentage (%)
|
Social Support Rate (%)
|
High Difficulty (%)
|
Discrimination (%)
|
Negative Impact (%)
|
|
High University Support
|
43
|
34.4
|
62.8
|
41.9
|
18.6
|
16.3
|
|
Moderate University Support
|
35
|
28.0
|
62.9
|
57.1
|
20.0
|
25.7
|
|
No University Support
|
35
|
28.0
|
65.7
|
37.1
|
11.4
|
34.3
|
|
Did Not Seek Support
|
12
|
9.6
|
83.3
|
66.7
|
33.3
|
16.7
|
Summary observations
Financial Barriers Dominate Housing Experiences (RQ1):The
quantitative data shows that 47.2% faced high housing difficulty and
75.2% prioritized price, mirroring qualitative reports of “$800 for a
shared room” and “impossible without savings.” These findings highlight
affordability as a central challenge, shaping students’ housing
experiences.
Diverse Financial Strategies (Objective 1):Students employed
cost-reduction strategies (shared housing: 46.4%, university housing:
27.2%), high-risk strategies (unofficial housing: 24.0%, no contracts:
17.6%), and support-seeking strategies (social support: 65.6%,
university support: 62.4%). Shared housing and social support were most
effective for stability (72.4% and 64.6%), but unofficial housing
offered higher improvement (53.3%) at the cost of risks, as seen in
qualitative reports of “no lease” vulnerabilities.
Variable Stability and Mobility (RQ1):Stable housing (59.2%)
contrasts with significant instability (38.4%) and high mobility
(26.4%), reflecting qualitative experiences of “unbearable” conditions
and frequent moves to “find something cheaper.” This indicates that
financial strategies partially mitigate but do not fully resolve housing
challenges.
Systemic Challenges (RQ1):Exclusion (36.0%) and discrimination
(18.4%) underscore systemic barriers, with qualitative reports of
“accent” and “weird foods” confirming cultural and status-based biases.
These challenges complicate financial strategies, forcing reliance on
riskier mechanisms like unofficial housing.
Support System Gaps (Objective 1, RQ1):University support (62.4%) was
widely used but less effective (29.5% housing improvement), aligning
with qualitative critiques of outdated resources. Social support (65.6%)
was a critical financial strategy, as seen in “Ghanaian friends” and
Xiaohongshu usage, highlighting community reliance over institutional
aid.
Objective 2. Assess
Demographic Influence on International Graduate Students’ Housing
Experience:
Assess how cultural and racial elements influence the housing choice
of international graduate students. Including how nationality, language,
race, sexuality, marital status, etc., contribute to the general housing
experience of international graduate students.
- RQ2: What coping strategies do international graduate students
explore to secure and maintain affordable housing?
Sample Demographics
Overview
Table 1: Sample Distribution by Region and Gender
|
Region
|
Gender
|
N
|
Region Total
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Africa
|
Female
|
27
|
57
|
47.4
|
|
Male
|
30
|
52.6
|
|
Asia
|
Female
|
21
|
42
|
50.0
|
|
Male
|
21
|
50.0
|
|
Europe
|
Female
|
2
|
19
|
10.5
|
|
Male
|
17
|
89.5
|
|
North America
|
Female
|
1
|
5
|
20.0
|
|
Male
|
4
|
80.0
|
|
Oceania
|
Male
|
2
|
2
|
100.0
|
## [1] "Total Sample: 125 students"
Discrimination and
Exclusion by Demographics
Table 2: Discrimination and Exclusion Rates by Region and Gender
|
Region
|
Gender
|
N
|
Discrimination (%)
|
Exclusion (%)
|
Any Discrimination (%)
|
|
Europe
|
Female
|
2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Asia
|
Female
|
21
|
23.8
|
61.9
|
66.7
|
|
Africa
|
Female
|
27
|
14.8
|
44.4
|
44.4
|
|
Africa
|
Male
|
30
|
23.3
|
26.7
|
43.3
|
|
Asia
|
Male
|
21
|
23.8
|
19.0
|
38.1
|
|
Europe
|
Male
|
17
|
11.8
|
35.3
|
35.3
|
|
North America
|
Female
|
1
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
North America
|
Male
|
4
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Oceania
|
Male
|
2
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
## Chi-square test results:
## Region-Discrimination: χ² = 3.212 , p = 0.523
## Gender-Discrimination: χ² = 0 , p = 1

Housing Outcomes and
Challenges
Table 3: Housing Outcomes by Region
|
Region
|
N
|
High Difficulty (%)
|
Stable Housing (%)
|
Negative Impact (%)
|
Unofficial Housing (%)
|
|
Europe
|
19
|
63.2
|
57.9
|
21.1
|
36.8
|
|
Asia
|
42
|
57.1
|
73.8
|
19.0
|
33.3
|
|
Africa
|
57
|
38.6
|
49.1
|
29.8
|
14.0
|
|
North America
|
5
|
20.0
|
40.0
|
20.0
|
20.0
|
|
Oceania
|
2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Table 4: Housing Outcomes by Gender
|
Gender
|
N
|
High Difficulty (%)
|
Negative Impact (%)
|
Safety Priority (%)
|
|
Female
|
51
|
52.9
|
35.3
|
62.7
|
|
Male
|
74
|
43.2
|
16.2
|
59.5
|
- Demographic Influences on Housing Outcomes
Quantitative Findings (Tables 1, 3, 4):
Sample Distribution (Table 1): Regions: Africa (45.6%, 57/125), Asia
(33.6%, 42/125), Europe (15.2%, 19/125), North America (4.0%, 5/125),
Oceania (1.6%, 2/125).
Gender: Males (59.2%, 74/125), Females (40.8%, 51/125). Africa and
Asia had balanced gender splits (47.4% and 50.0% female, respectively),
while Europe (89.5% male) and Oceania (100% male) were
male-dominated.
Age: Younger (18–25: 60.0%, 75/125), Older (26+: 40.0%, 50/125).
Academic Level: Masters (71.2%, 89/125), PhD (17.6%, 22/125),
Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate (11.2%, 14/125).
Housing Outcomes by Region (Table 3):
High Difficulty: Europe (63.2%), Asia (57.1%), Africa (38.6%), North
America (20.0%), Oceania (0.0%). Europe’s higher difficulty was
significant (logistic regression, OR = 3.3, 95% CI [1.09–10.7], p =
0.0389, Table 7).
Stable Housing: Oceania (100.0%), Asia (73.8%), Europe (57.9%),
Africa (49.1%), North America (40.0%). Asia had the highest stability
among larger groups.
Negative Impact: Africa (29.8%), Europe (21.1%), Asia (19.0%), North
America (20.0%), Oceania (0.0%).
Unofficial Housing: Europe (36.8%), Asia (33.3%), North America
(20.0%), Africa (14.0%), Oceania (0.0%).
Housing Outcomes by Gender (Table 4):Females reported higher
difficulty (52.9% vs. 43.2% males), negative impact (35.3% vs. 16.2%),
and safety priority (62.7% vs. 59.5%).
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25)
Regional Influences: African students faced cultural barriers, with a
Kenyan student noting, “One landlord asked if I eat ‘weird foods’—it
felt like they didn’t want an African tenant.” Asian students
prioritized affordability, as a Chinese student said, “The rent is so
high—$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.”
Gender Differences: Female students emphasized safety, with a
Malaysian student stating, “I chose a place near campus for safety, even
if it cost more.”
Forty-eight percent (12/25) of interviewees reported discrimination,
with African students (e.g., Nigerian: “They heard my accent and said it
was taken”) particularly affected.
Navigation Challenges: Fifty-two percent (13/25) found the housing
market “confusing,” with a Pakistani student noting, “I didn’t know
about leases or tenant rights,” highlighting cultural unfamiliarity.
Regional differences significantly shape housing experiences
(Objective 2). Europe’s high difficulty (63.2%) and Asia’s high
stability (73.8%) contrast with Africa’s lower stability (49.1%) and
higher negative impact (29.8%), reflecting cultural and racial
influences (e.g., African students’ discrimination). Females’ higher
difficulty (52.9%) and safety focus (62.7%) align with qualitative
emphasis on safety, indicating gender-specific housing priorities.
Coping Strategies
Analysis
Table 5: Coping Strategies by Region
|
Region
|
N
|
Social Support (%)
|
University Support (%)
|
Unofficial Housing (%)
|
Multiple Moves (%)
|
|
Asia
|
42
|
73.8
|
66.7
|
33.3
|
26.2
|
|
Europe
|
19
|
73.7
|
42.1
|
36.8
|
31.6
|
|
North America
|
5
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
20.0
|
60.0
|
|
Africa
|
57
|
59.6
|
64.9
|
14.0
|
22.8
|
|
Oceania
|
2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Table 6: Coping Strategies by Gender
|
Gender
|
N
|
Social Support (%)
|
University Support (%)
|
Personal Networks (%)
|
|
Female
|
51
|
76.5
|
64.7
|
27.5
|
|
Male
|
74
|
58.1
|
60.8
|
36.5
|

- Coping Strategies by Demographics
Quantitative Findings (Tables 5, 6):
Coping Strategies by Region (Table 5): Social Support: Asia (73.8%),
Europe (73.7%), North America (60.0%), Africa (59.6%), Oceania
(0.0%).
University Support: Oceania (100.0%), Asia (66.7%), Africa (64.9%),
North America (60.0%), Europe (42.1%).
Unofficial Housing: Europe (36.8%), Asia (33.3%), North America
(20.0%), Africa (14.0%), Oceania (0.0%).
Multiple Moves: North America (60.0%), Europe (31.6%), Asia (26.2%),
Africa (22.8%), Oceania (0.0%).
Coping Strategies by Gender (Table 6):
Females used more social support (76.5% vs. 58.1% males) and
university support (64.7% vs. 60.8%), but less personal networks (27.5%
vs. 36.5%).
Logistic regression (Table 7): Males were less likely to use social
support (OR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.18–0.98], p = 0.0488).
Effectiveness (Prior Table 5a):
Social support led to 64.6% stable housing, 39.0% improvement, and
32.9% satisfaction.
Unofficial housing had higher improvement (53.3%) and satisfaction
(46.7%) but lower discrimination avoidance (73.3%).
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Social Support: Seventy-two percent (18/25) relied on social
networks, with African students emphasizing community ties (e.g.,
Ghanaian: “My Ghanaian friends connected me with a trusted landlord”).
Chinese students used cultural platforms (e.g., “Xiaohongshu had
listings from other Chinese students”).
Unofficial Housing: Twenty-eight percent (7/25) used unofficial
arrangements, with an Indian student noting, “I stayed in a basement
with no lease because the landlord didn’t ask for a credit score,” but
risks were evident: “No heat, and I couldn’t complain” (Kenyan
student).
Mobility: Thirty-six percent (9/25) moved multiple times, with
African students (5/9 movers) citing cost pressures: “Every time rent
went up, I had to find a new place” (Cameroonian student).
University Support: Only 40% (10/25) found university support
effective, with a Malaysian student stating, “The university gave me a
housing list, but most places were already taken.”
Coping strategies vary by demographics (RQ2, Objective 2). Asian
(73.8%) and European (73.7%) students heavily relied on social support,
reflecting qualitative use of cultural networks (e.g., Xiaohongshu).
African students’ lower social support (59.6%) but high university
support (64.9%) suggests institutional reliance, possibly due to
cultural barriers. Females’ higher social support (76.5%) aligns with
qualitative safety concerns, driving community-based strategies.
Unofficial housing (Europe: 36.8%, Asia: 33.3%) reflects risk-taking to
bypass barriers, as seen in “no lease” narratives, but African students’
lower use (14.0%) may indicate stronger community networks reducing risk
needs.
Predictive
Analysis
Table 7: Predictive Models - Odds Ratios (95% CI)
|
Model
|
Predictor
|
OR (95% CI)
|
p-value
|
Sig.
|
|
Discrimination Risk
|
regionAsia
|
1.44 (0.53-3.92)
|
0.4706
|
|
|
regionEurope
|
0.48 (0.07-2.15)
|
0.3794
|
|
|
regionNorth America
|
0 (NA-4.46721617856257e+71)
|
0.9927
|
|
|
regionOceania
|
0 (NA-1.28197896009861e+183)
|
0.9954
|
|
|
sexMale
|
1.29 (0.49-3.52)
|
0.6045
|
|
|
age_groupedYounger (18-25)
|
0.58 (0.22-1.5)
|
0.2633
|
|
|
Housing Difficulty
|
regionAsia
|
2.12 (0.93-4.91)
|
0.0745
|
|
|
regionEurope
|
3.3 (1.09-10.7)
|
0.0389
|
|
|
regionNorth America
|
0.45 (0.02-3.45)
|
0.4973
|
|
|
regionOceania
|
0 (NA-3.69976187967599e+63)
|
0.9885
|
|
|
sexMale
|
0.62 (0.28-1.35)
|
0.2265
|
|
|
age_groupedYounger (18-25)
|
0.99 (0.46-2.13)
|
0.9856
|
|
|
Social Support Use
|
regionAsia
|
1.77 (0.73-4.48)
|
0.2146
|
|
|
regionEurope
|
2.19 (0.65-8.16)
|
0.2164
|
|
|
regionNorth America
|
1.33 (0.2-11.25)
|
0.7687
|
|
|
regionOceania
|
0 (NA-2.32692302009776e+63)
|
0.9881
|
|
|
sexMale
|
0.42 (0.18-0.98)
|
0.0488
|
|
|
discrimination_binary
|
0.69 (0.22-2.14)
|
0.5113
|
|
|
high_difficulty
|
1.93 (0.8-4.87)
|
0.1485
|
|
Intersectionality
Analysis
Table 8: Intersectional Analysis - Multiple Disadvantage by Region and
Gender
|
Region
|
Gender
|
N
|
Mean Disadvantage Score
|
High Disadvantage (%)
|
Social Support (%)
|
|
Europe
|
Female
|
2
|
2.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Asia
|
Female
|
21
|
1.8
|
61.9
|
95.2
|
|
Africa
|
Female
|
27
|
1.4
|
51.9
|
63.0
|
|
Europe
|
Male
|
17
|
1.3
|
47.1
|
70.6
|
|
Africa
|
Male
|
30
|
1.0
|
23.3
|
56.7
|
|
Asia
|
Male
|
21
|
1.0
|
28.6
|
52.4
|
|
North America
|
Male
|
4
|
0.5
|
25.0
|
75.0
|
|
Female
|
1
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Oceania
|
Male
|
2
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
- Discrimination and Exclusion Patterns
Quantitative Findings (Table 2, Table 8):
Discrimination and Exclusion Rates (Table 2):
Highest Combined Discrimination: Europe (Female: 100.0%, Male:
35.3%), Asia (Female: 66.7%, Male: 38.1%), Africa (Female: 44.4%, Male:
43.3%), North America and Oceania (0.0%).
Discrimination: Asia (23.8% female/male), Africa (14.8% female, 23.3%
male), Europe (0.0% female, 11.8% male).
Exclusion: Europe (Female: 100.0%), Asia (Female: 61.9%), Africa
(Female: 44.4%).
Intersectional Disadvantage (Table 8):
Mean Disadvantage Score (sum of discrimination, exclusion,
difficulty, negative impact): Europe (Female: 2.0, Male: 1.3), Asia
(Female: 1.8, Male: 1.0), Africa (Female: 1.4, Male: 1.0).
High Disadvantage (≥2 challenges): Europe (Female: 100.0%), Asia
(Female: 61.9%), Africa (Female: 51.9%, Male: 23.3%).
Statistical Tests (Table 7):Chi-square tests showed no significant
regional (χ² = 3.212, p = 0.523) or gender (χ² = 0, p = 1) differences
in discrimination, likely due to small sample sizes in some regions
(e.g., Oceania, N = 2).
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Cultural and Racial Discrimination: Forty-eight percent (12/25)
reported discrimination, with African students particularly affected
(e.g., Nigerian: “I was told the apartment was taken after they heard my
accent”; Kenyan: “She saw I was black and stopped replying”). Six
students (24%) explicitly noted racial/cultural biases.
Status-Based Exclusion: A Nigerian student stated, “They asked for a
Canadian guarantor—I didn’t have one,” reflecting exclusion due to
international status (48% reported this).
Gendered Experiences: Female students faced unique challenges, with a
Malaysian student noting, “I felt unsafe in some viewings, so I only
looked at places near campus.”
Discrimination and exclusion vary by region and gender (Objective 2),
with European females (100.0%) and Asian females (66.7%) facing the
highest combined discrimination, aligning with qualitative reports of
cultural and racial biases (e.g., “weird foods”). African students’
lower discrimination (14.8–23.3%) but high exclusion (44.4% female)
suggests status-based barriers, as seen in “guarantor” issues. Females’
higher disadvantage scores (e.g., Asia: 1.8 vs. 1.0 for males) reflect
gendered vulnerabilities, supporting qualitative safety concerns. These
patterns influence coping strategies (RQ2) by necessitating region- and
gender-specific approaches.
Housing Search and
Preference Patterns
Table 9: Top 3 Housing Factors by Region
|
Region
|
Housing Factor
|
Mentions
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Africa
|
Price
|
47
|
30.1
|
|
Location
|
43
|
27.6
|
|
Safety
|
34
|
21.8
|
|
Asia
|
Price
|
35
|
30.4
|
|
Location
|
34
|
29.6
|
|
Safety
|
25
|
21.7
|
|
Europe
|
Location
|
14
|
29.8
|
|
Safety
|
14
|
29.8
|
|
Price
|
10
|
21.3
|
|
North America
|
Location
|
4
|
40.0
|
|
Safety
|
3
|
30.0
|
|
Price
|
2
|
20.0
|
|
Oceania
|
Location
|
2
|
100.0
|
Table 10: Search Strategy Diversity by Region
|
Region
|
N
|
Search Diversity
|
Personal Networks (%)
|
Cultural Platforms (%)
|
|
Africa
|
57
|
1.8
|
35.1
|
1.8
|
|
Asia
|
42
|
1.5
|
26.2
|
7.1
|
|
Europe
|
19
|
1.9
|
42.1
|
0.0
|
|
North America
|
5
|
1.4
|
40.0
|
0.0
|
|
Oceania
|
2
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
- Housing Decision Factors and Search Methods
Quantitative Findings (Tables 9, 10):
Housing Factors by Region (Table 9):
Africa: Price (30.1%), Location (27.6%), Safety (21.8%). Asia: Price
(30.4%), Location (29.6%), Safety (21.7%). Europe: Location (29.8%),
Safety (29.8%), Price (21.3%). North America: Location (40.0%), Safety
(30.0%), Price (20.0%). Oceania: Location (100.0%).
Search Strategy Diversity (Table 10):
Search Diversity (mean number of methods): Europe (1.9), Africa
(1.8), Asia (1.5), North America (1.4), Oceania (1.0).
Personal Networks: Europe (42.1%), North America (40.0%), Africa
(35.1%), Asia (26.2%), Oceania (0.0%).
Cultural Platforms: Asia (7.1%), Africa (1.8%), others (0.0%).
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Decision Factors: Price was critical (80%, 20/25), with an Indian
student stating, “$800 for a shared room is more than my scholarship.”
Safety was emphasized by females, as a Malaysian student noted, “I chose
a place near campus for safety.” Location was key, with a Chinese
student saying, “Being close to campus saves time.”
Search Methods: Seventy-two percent (18/25) used social networks,
with Chinese students using Xiaohongshu (“listings from other Chinese
students”) and African students relying on community ties (“church
friends”). Fifty-two percent (13/25) found online platforms (e.g.,
Facebook Marketplace) helpful but “overwhelming” due to
unfamiliarity.
Housing decision factors are influenced by demographics (Objective
2), with price and location dominating across regions (Africa: 30.1%,
Asia: 30.4%), aligning with qualitative affordability concerns. Safety
is a key factor (Africa: 21.8%, Asia: 21.7%), particularly for females
(62.7%), as seen in “near campus” preferences. Search methods reflect
cultural influences (RQ2), with Asia’s use of cultural platforms (7.1%)
matching Xiaohongshu reliance, and Europe/Africa’s higher personal
network use (42.1%, 35.1%) aligning with “church friends” narratives.
Lower search diversity in Asia (1.5) suggests reliance on specific
platforms, shaping coping strategies.
Summary Observations
Demographic Influences on Housing Outcomes (Objective 2):Regional
differences shape housing experiences, with Europe’s high difficulty
(63.2%) and Asia’s high stability (73.8%) reflecting cultural and
economic factors. African students’ lower stability (49.1%) and higher
negative impact (29.8%) align with qualitative discrimination reports
(e.g., “weird foods”). Females’ higher difficulty (52.9%) and safety
focus (62.7%) indicate gendered housing challenges.
Discrimination and Exclusion (Objective 2):European (100.0% female)
and Asian (66.7% female) students face high combined discrimination,
with qualitative reports of racial (e.g., “black”) and status-based
(e.g., “guarantor”) barriers. Intersectional disadvantage (Europe
female: 2.0, Asia female: 1.8) highlights compounded challenges for
certain groups, influencing coping strategy choices (RQ2).
Coping Strategies by Demographics (RQ2):Social support (Asia: 73.8%,
Europe: 73.7%) and university support (Oceania: 100.0%, Asia: 66.7%)
vary by region, with qualitative narratives of Xiaohongshu and community
ties explaining cultural preferences. Females’ higher social support
(76.5%) reflects safety-driven strategies, while unofficial housing
(Europe: 36.8%, Asia: 33.3%) indicates risk-taking to bypass barriers,
as seen in “no lease” accounts.
Decision Factors and Search Methods (Objective 2, RQ2):Price and
location dominate across regions, with safety critical for females,
aligning with qualitative priorities (e.g., “near campus”). Cultural
platforms (Asia: 7.1%) and personal networks (Europe: 42.1%) reflect
region-specific coping strategies, as seen in Xiaohongshu and “church
friends” reliance, shaping housing experiences.
3.Develop Policy
Recommendation
Develop actionable guidelines, measures, and policies to ensure the
availability and affordability of international graduate student
housing. This further ascertains recommendations to provide improved
international graduate student housing, consequently improving their
overall housing experience.
RQ 3.What policy recommendations can improve sustainable and
affordable housing for international students?
Table 1: Thematic Analysis of Policy Recommendations
|
Theme
|
Count
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Affordability
|
53
|
53
|
|
Location Transport
|
16
|
16
|
|
University Support
|
12
|
12
|
|
Rent Reduction
|
11
|
11
|
|
Amenities
|
10
|
10
|
|
Space Privacy
|
10
|
10
|
|
Safety Security
|
10
|
10
|
|
Financial Aid
|
3
|
3
|
|
Pet Friendly
|
2
|
2
|
|
Housing Office
|
1
|
1
|
|
Guarantor Issues
|
1
|
1
|

Table 2: Most Frequent Terms in Policy Suggestions
|
|
Word
|
Frequency
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
low
|
low
|
16
|
4.1
|
|
amenities
|
amenities
|
15
|
3.8
|
|
price
|
price
|
13
|
3.3
|
|
affordable
|
affordable
|
11
|
2.8
|
|
safety
|
safety
|
10
|
2.5
|
|
prices
|
prices
|
8
|
2.0
|
|
adequate
|
adequate
|
7
|
1.8
|
|
cheaper
|
cheaper
|
7
|
1.8
|
|
affordability
|
affordability
|
6
|
1.5
|
|
options
|
options
|
6
|
1.5
|
|
school
|
school
|
6
|
1.5
|
|
utilities
|
utilities
|
6
|
1.5
|
|
expensive
|
expensive
|
5
|
1.3
|
|
foe
|
foe
|
5
|
1.3
|
|
hear
|
hear
|
5
|
1.3
|

- Policy Recommendation Themes
Quantitative Findings (Table 1, Table 2):
Thematic Analysis (Table 1, N = 100 valid responses):
Affordability: 53.0% (53/100) suggested affordability measures, the
most frequent theme.
Location/Transport: 16.0% (16/100) emphasized proximity to campus or
transit.
University Support: 12.0% (12/100) called for institutional
assistance (e.g., housing advisors).
Rent Reduction: 11.0% (11/100) proposed lowering rents.
Amenities: 10.0% (10/100) requested better facilities (e.g.,
internet, laundry).
Space/Privacy: 10.0% (10/100) sought larger or private spaces.
Safety/Security: 10.0% (10/100) prioritized safer housing.
Financial Aid: 3.0% (3/100) suggested subsidies or grants.
Pet-Friendly Housing: 2.0% (2/100) and Housing Office (1.0%, 1/100)
were less common.
Guarantor Issues: 1.0% (1/100) addressed barriers like Canadian
guarantor requirements.
Frequent Terms (Table 2):Top terms included “low” (16 mentions,
4.1%), “amenities” (15, 3.8%), “price” (13, 3.3%), “affordable” (11,
2.8%), and “safety” (10, 2.5%), reinforcing affordability and quality
concerns.
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Affordability: Eighty percent (20/25) emphasized high costs, with an
Indian student stating, “The rent here is so high—$800 for a shared room
is more than my scholarship.” Suggestions included “cap rent prices”
(Indian student) and “subsidies for international students” (Nigerian
student).
University Support: Forty percent (10/25) called for better
institutional resources, with a Malaysian student noting, “The
university should have verified rentals or a housing advisor to guide
us.” A Pakistani student suggested, “A university office to connect us
with trusted landlords.”
Anti-Discrimination: Forty-eight percent (12/25) reported
discrimination, with a Kenyan student proposing, “Landlords need
training on fairness—some reject us because we’re African.” A Nigerian
student added, “They asked for a Canadian guarantor, which I didn’t
have.”
Amenities and Safety: Students highlighted poor housing conditions,
with a Vietnamese student stating, “My first place had no heating in
winter—it was unbearable.” A Chinese student suggested, “Better internet
and safer buildings would help.”
Location: A Chinese student noted, “Being close to campus saves time
and money,” aligning with transport suggestions.
Affordability (53.0%) is the dominant policy concern, aligning with
qualitative reports of “$800 for a shared room” and supporting Objective
3’s focus on affordability. University support (12.0%) and rent
reduction (11.0%) address institutional and economic barriers, while
amenities (10.0%), space/privacy (10.0%), and safety/security (10.0%)
reflect quality-of-life needs. Less frequent themes like guarantor
issues (1.0%) connect to qualitative “guarantor” barriers, highlighting
systemic challenges.
Co-occurrence
Network of Policy Themes


Affordability + Rent Reduction: 11 mentions, indicating a strong link
between cost concerns and specific rent-lowering measures.
University Support + Location/Transport: 7 mentions, suggesting a
need for institutionally supported housing near campus.
Affordability + Amenities: 6 mentions, reflecting combined desires
for cost-effective and quality housing.
Affordability + University Support: 5 mentions, linking cost barriers
to institutional solutions.
University Support + Financial Aid: 3 mentions, indicating a need for
combined institutional and financial assistance.
Other Metrics (Prior Tables):High housing difficulty (47.2%),
discrimination (18.4%), and exclusion (36.0%) underscore the need for
policies addressing systemic barriers.
Stable housing (59.2%) and social support reliance (65.6%) highlight
the role of community and institutional support in policy solutions.
- Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Affordability and Rent Reduction: Students linked high costs to
policy needs, with an Indian student stating, “If the university could
negotiate lower rents with landlords, it would help.” A Nigerian student
added, “A rent cap would make housing affordable.”
University Support and Location: A Pakistani student suggested, “The
university should offer campus housing or a shuttle to affordable
areas.” A Chinese student noted, “Verified rentals near campus would
save time.”
Anti-Discrimination and Guarantor Issues: A Kenyan student proposed,
“Landlord education on tenant rights would reduce discrimination.” A
Nigerian student added, “Universities should act as guarantors for
international students.”
Amenities and Safety: A Vietnamese student emphasized, “Better
heating and internet would make rentals livable.” A Malaysian student
noted, “Safer buildings would reduce stress for female students.”
The co-occurrence of affordability with rent reduction (11 mentions)
and university support (5 mentions) supports qualitative calls for “rent
caps” and “verified rentals,” aligning with Objective 3’s actionable
guidelines. University support and location/transport (7 mentions)
reflect qualitative needs for campus proximity, addressing RQ3’s
sustainability focus. The qualitative emphasis on anti-discrimination
(48%) and guarantor issues, though less frequent quantitatively (1.0%),
underscores systemic barriers requiring policy intervention.
Table 3: Policy Recommendation Priorities by Demographics (N ≥ 3)
|
Gender
|
Region
|
Academic Level
|
N
|
University Support (%)
|
Affordability (%)
|
Anti-Discrimination (%)
|
Amenities (%)
|
|
Female
|
Africa
|
Masters
|
19
|
21.1
|
47.4
|
0
|
10.5
|
|
Female
|
Africa
|
PhD
|
4
|
25.0
|
75.0
|
0
|
50.0
|
|
Female
|
Asia
|
Masters
|
12
|
0.0
|
66.7
|
0
|
25.0
|
|
Female
|
Asia
|
PhD
|
4
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
0
|
0.0
|
|
Male
|
Africa
|
Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate
|
4
|
0.0
|
50.0
|
0
|
25.0
|
|
Male
|
Africa
|
Masters
|
14
|
14.3
|
57.1
|
0
|
7.1
|
|
Male
|
Africa
|
PhD
|
7
|
0.0
|
42.9
|
0
|
0.0
|
|
Male
|
Asia
|
Postgraduate Diploma/Certificate
|
3
|
33.3
|
33.3
|
0
|
0.0
|
|
Male
|
Asia
|
Masters
|
10
|
10.0
|
60.0
|
0
|
10.0
|
|
Male
|
Asia
|
PhD
|
5
|
0.0
|
40.0
|
0
|
0.0
|
|
Male
|
Europe
|
Masters
|
11
|
27.3
|
45.5
|
0
|
0.0
|

- Demographic Variations in Policy Priorities
Quantitative Findings (Table 3):Policy Priorities by Demographics (N
≥ 3):
Female, Africa, Masters (N = 19): Affordability (47.4%), University
Support (21.1%), Amenities (10.5%).
Female, Africa, PhD (N = 4): Affordability (75.0%), Amenities
(50.0%), University Support (25.0%).
Female, Asia, Masters (N = 12): Affordability (66.7%), Amenities
(25.0%), University Support (0.0%).
Female, Asia, PhD (N = 4): Affordability (100.0%), Amenities (0.0%),
University Support (0.0%).
Male, Africa, Masters (N = 14): Affordability (57.1%), University
Support (14.3%), Amenities (7.1%).
Male, Africa, PhD (N = 7): Affordability (42.9%), University Support
(0.0%), Amenities (0.0%).
Male, Asia, Masters (N = 10): Affordability (60.0%), University
Support (10.0%), Amenities (10.0%).
Male, Europe, Masters (N = 11): Affordability (45.5%), University
Support (27.3%), Amenities (0.0%).
Key trends:Affordability was universally prioritized, especially by
Asian females (PhD: 100.0%, Masters: 66.7%) and African females (PhD:
75.0%).
University support was more common among African females (Masters:
21.1%, PhD: 25.0%) and European males (27.3%).
Amenities were notable for African females (PhD: 50.0%, Masters:
10.5%) and Asian females (Masters: 25.0%).
Anti-discrimination was not mentioned in groups with N ≥ 3, possibly
due to sample size or coding limitations.
Qualitative Findings (Interviews 1–25):
Regional Differences: African students emphasized
anti-discrimination, with a Nigerian student stating, “Landlord training
on fairness would stop rejections based on accent or race.” Asian
students focused on affordability, with a Chinese student suggesting,
“Subsidies or cheaper campus housing would help.”
Gender Differences: Female students prioritized safety, with a
Malaysian student noting, “Safer buildings near campus would make a big
difference.” Males also emphasized affordability, with a Pakistani
student stating, “Lower rents would let me focus on my studies.”
Academic Level: PhD students, particularly African females,
highlighted amenities, with one stating, “I need a quiet space to
work—most rentals are too small or shared.”
Demographic variations (Objective 3) show affordability as a
universal priority (up to 100.0% for Asian female PhD students),
aligning with qualitative “high rent” concerns. University support is
more critical for African females (21.1–25.0%) and European males
(27.3%), reflecting qualitative calls for “housing advisors.” Amenities
are a concern for African females (PhD: 50.0%), consistent with “quiet
space” needs. The absence of anti-discrimination in Table 3 suggests
underreporting in quantitative coding, but qualitative data (48%
reporting discrimination) supports its inclusion in policy
recommendations (RQ3).
Summary observations
Dominant Policy Themes (RQ3):Affordability (53.0%) is the primary
concern, supported by qualitative “high rent” narratives and frequent
terms (“low,” “price”). Rent reduction (11.0%) and financial aid (3.0%)
are specific measures to address cost barriers, fulfilling Objective 3’s
affordability focus.
Institutional Support Needs (Objective 3):University support (12.0%)
and housing office (1.0%) align with qualitative calls for “housing
advisors” and “verified rentals,” suggesting institutional policies to
improve navigation and access. Co-occurrence with affordability (5
mentions) and location/transport (7 mentions) highlights integrated
solutions.
Quality and Safety (RQ3):Amenities (10.0%), space/privacy (10.0%),
and safety/security (10.0%) address qualitative concerns about “no
heating” and “safer buildings,” supporting Objective 3’s goal of
improving housing experience.
Systemic Barriers (Objective 3):Anti-discrimination (0.0% in Table 3,
but qualitative 48%) and guarantor issues (1.0%) reflect systemic
challenges, with qualitative proposals for “landlord training” and
“university guarantors” addressing discrimination (18.4%) and exclusion
(36.0%).
Demographic-Specific Policies (RQ3):Asian and African females
prioritize affordability (up to 100.0%), while African females and
European males emphasize university support (21.1–27.3%). Amenities are
critical for African female PhD students (50.0%), aligning with
qualitative “quiet space” needs.
Conclusion
This mixed-methods study comprehensively investigated the housing
experiences of international graduate students in Kitchener/Waterloo,
addressing three objectives: identifying financial strategies and
housing experiences (Objective 1/RQ1), assessing demographic influences
on housing choices and coping strategies (Objective 2/RQ2), and
developing policy recommendations for sustainable and affordable housing
(Objective 3/RQ3). The quantitative analysis (N = 125) revealed
significant housing challenges, with 47.2% reporting high difficulty in
securing housing, 38.4% experiencing unstable housing, and 18.4% facing
discrimination, particularly due to international student status (36.0%
exclusion). Financial strategies included shared housing (46.4%), social
support (65.6%), and unofficial housing (24.0%), with shared housing
achieving the highest stability (72.4%). Qualitative insights from 25
interviews corroborated these challenges, with students citing
prohibitive rents (“$800 for a shared room”), discrimination
(“rejections based on accent”), and reliance on community networks
(“Ghanaian friends”).
Demographic variations highlighted regional and gender differences:
Asian (73.8%) and European (57.9%) students achieved higher stability,
while African students faced higher negative impacts (29.8%) and
discrimination (14.8–23.3%). Females reported greater difficulty (52.9%
vs. 43.2% males) and prioritized safety (62.7%), influencing their
reliance on social support (76.5% vs. 58.1% males). Coping strategies
like cultural platforms (e.g., Xiaohongshu, 7.1% in Asia) and personal
networks (42.1% in Europe) reflected demographic-specific
adaptations.
Policy recommendations emphasized affordability (53.0%), university
support (12.0%), and quality improvements (amenities, safety, space:
10.0% each), with qualitative calls for “rent caps,” “housing advisors,”
and “landlord training” addressing systemic barriers (e.g., guarantor
issues). Demographic priorities showed Asian and African females
focusing on affordability (up to 100.0%) and African PhD students
valuing amenities (50.0%). The study proposes actionable policies—rent
subsidies, university housing offices, verified rentals, and
anti-discrimination training—to enhance housing stability (59.2%) and
reduce stress (24.0% negative impact).These findings underscore the
interplay of financial, cultural, and systemic factors in shaping
housing experiences, with affordability and discrimination as critical
barriers.